House Ear Institute

About: House Ear Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Los Angeles, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cochlear implant & Hearing loss. The organization has 623 authors who have published 1193 publications receiving 73069 citations.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Abstract: Nearly perfect speech recognition was observed under conditions of greatly reduced spectral information. Temporal envelopes of speech were extracted from broad frequency bands and were used to modulate noises of the same bandwidths. This manipulation preserved temporal envelope cues in each band but restricted the listener to severely degraded information on the distribution of spectral energy. The identification of consonants, vowels, and words in simple sentences improved markedly as the number of bands increased; high speech recognition performance was obtained with only three bands of modulated noise. Thus, the presentation of a dynamic temporal pattern in only a few broad spectral regions is sufficient for the recognition of speech.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Abstract: Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response

Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise

Abstract: A large set of sentence materials, chosen for their uniformity in length and representation of natural speech, has been developed for the measurement of sentence speech reception thresholds (sSRTs). The mean‐squared level of each digitally recorded sentence was adjusted to equate intelligibility when presented in spectrally matched noise to normal‐hearing listeners. These materials were cast into 25 phonemically balanced lists of ten sentences for adaptive measurement of sentence sSRTs. The 95% confidence interval for these measurements is ±2.98 dB for sSRTs in quiet and ±2.41 dB for sSRTs in noise, as defined by the variability of repeated measures with different lists. Average sSRTs in quiet were 23.91 dB(A). Average sSRTs in 72 dB(A) noise were 69.08 dB(A), or −2.92 dB signal/noise ratio. Low‐pass filtering increased sSRTs slightly in quiet and noise as the 4‐ and 8‐kHz octave bands were eliminated. Much larger increases in SRT occurred when the 2‐kHz octave band was eliminated, and bandwidth dropped below 2.5 kHz. Reliability was not degraded substantially until bandwidth dropped below 2.5 kHz. The statistical reliability and efficiency of the test suit it to practical applications in which measures of speech intelligibility are required.

Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants

Abstract: Speech recognition was measured as a function of spectral resolution (number of spectral channels) and speech-to-noise ratio in normal-hearing (NH) and cochlear-implant(CI) listeners. Vowel, consonant, word, and sentence recognition were measured in five normal-hearing listeners, ten listeners with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant, and nine listeners with the Advanced Bionics Clarion cochlear implant. Recognition was measured as a function of the number of spectral channels (noise bands or electrodes) at signal-to-noise ratios of +15, +10, +5, 0 dB, and in quiet. Performance with three different speech processing strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and SAS) was similar across all conditions, and improved as the number of electrodes increased (up to seven or eight) for all conditions. For all noise levels, vowel and consonant recognition with the SPEAK speech processor did not improve with more than seven electrodes, while for normal-hearing listeners, performance continued to increase up to at least 20 channels. Speech recognition on more difficult speech materials (word and sentence recognition) showed a marginally significant increase in Nucleus-22 listeners from seven to ten electrodes. The average implant score on all processing strategies was poorer than scores of NH listeners with similar processing. However, the best CI scores were similar to the normal-hearing scores for that condition (up to seven channels). CI listeners with the highest performance level increased in performance as the number of electrodes increased up to seven, while CI listeners with low levels of speech recognition did not increase in performance as the number of electrodes was increased beyond four. These results quantify the effect of number of spectral channels on speech recognition in noise and demonstrate that most CI subjects are not able to fully utilize the spectral information provided by the number of electrodes used in their implant.